-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/14 12:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> >> I'm wondering what everyone thinks of having a --nonag option to >> repoman and shoving some of the more trivial/style-related >> repoman 'warnings' into a 'nag' level warning? IIRC at least one >> of the QA team members is so tired of the warnings that they want >> to make every single one of them errors; the --nonag option would >> allow those warnings to remain in repoman (ie to help guide new >> dev's or non-dev's using repoman on their local repos) but since >> they don't relate to actual technical breakage they can just be >> turned off during QA runs, etc. >> > > What, specifically, are we considering trivial? > > The whole point of repoman is to prevent devs from making > mistakes. Being able to turn off warnings is counterproductive. > Eliminating warnings that don't need to be warnings is of course > fine. > > There is no value in having an escalating battle between warnings > and options to suppress them. > > Rich >
Well, there's warnings related to style, like DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period, and then there's warnings relating to technical or functional issues. Of the second set, there are fatal ones and then there are ones that aren't fatal but still important (DEPENDENCY.badindev comes to mind). I think the style or other non-functional warnings (i can't actually think of any that aren't style related, tbh) are great to have, and perhaps should even be expanded if someone felt so inclined, but not at the expense of additional noise all the time for groups like QA that are primarily concerned about maintaining functionality. So instead of, for instance, dropping the DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could instead be relegated to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag. Essentially what it boils down to is that I don't see every non-fatal warning as being equivalent in importance, and it might make sense to push the ones that could be construed as recommendations rather than warnings to a lighter level. If there isn't any support for this idea, then of course let's skip it and we can drop the check(s) instead if that's what's desired by the community. Then it's just a question of how far we might want to go in terms of dropping checks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqR28ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCQfQEAgs9Zbpw9rkXjZpJUrM6s0/LZ mGm1UeLe0iNN0zKn8JwBAJZ2NL1tEDA+8X15UHsT4mBTevK+I3cv9+l6R7j6AtGq =ptmP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
